We have no canon examples of a person using a Vanishing Charm to make something disappear and come back later. We have accidental magic (which does not appear to follow normal magic rules, as I note elsewhere), we have objects being Vanished and never seen again (including all the entries in the Wiki), and we have Vanishing Cabinets, which we have no reason to believe are the same thing as Vanishing Charms.
To assume that “a thing disappears by magic” = “use of Vanishing Charm” is as spurious as to assume “a thing gets killed by magic” = “use of Avada Kedavra”.
We have no canon examples of a person using a Vanishing Charm to make something disappear and come back later.
We don’t have canon examples of a lot of things.
Which is more likely, that the Vanished animals follow the trends already observed for all the related magics, or that Rowling makes an exception for the animals and Hogwarts is a charnelhouse?
But we have an explicit canon statement by a recognised authority in the spell school in question. That should trump guesses based on inferred similarities between different instances of different spells.
Which is more likely, that the Vanished animals follow the trends already observed for all the related magics, or that Rowling makes an exception for the animals and Hogwarts is a charnelhouse?
Given that
1) the trends you cite are only there if we assume that every instance of something disappearing uses identical magical mechanisms to the Vanishing Charm
and
2) Rowling appears to have no conception of non-sentients’ rights whatsoever (cf. Transfiguring hedgehogs into pincushions, some of which still quiver in fear when faced with pins)
I believe the balance of evidence favours the “charnelhouse” claim. To clarify, I don’t believe that Rowling makes an exception for the animals: whatever magical effects apply elsewhere, the specific spell known as the Vanishing Charm is intended to make its target enter “non-being” and permanently disappear.
We have no canon examples of a person using a Vanishing Charm to make something disappear and come back later. We have accidental magic (which does not appear to follow normal magic rules, as I note elsewhere), we have objects being Vanished and never seen again (including all the entries in the Wiki), and we have Vanishing Cabinets, which we have no reason to believe are the same thing as Vanishing Charms.
To assume that “a thing disappears by magic” = “use of Vanishing Charm” is as spurious as to assume “a thing gets killed by magic” = “use of Avada Kedavra”.
We don’t have canon examples of a lot of things.
Which is more likely, that the Vanished animals follow the trends already observed for all the related magics, or that Rowling makes an exception for the animals and Hogwarts is a charnelhouse?
But we have an explicit canon statement by a recognised authority in the spell school in question. That should trump guesses based on inferred similarities between different instances of different spells.
Given that
1) the trends you cite are only there if we assume that every instance of something disappearing uses identical magical mechanisms to the Vanishing Charm
and
2) Rowling appears to have no conception of non-sentients’ rights whatsoever (cf. Transfiguring hedgehogs into pincushions, some of which still quiver in fear when faced with pins)
I believe the balance of evidence favours the “charnelhouse” claim. To clarify, I don’t believe that Rowling makes an exception for the animals: whatever magical effects apply elsewhere, the specific spell known as the Vanishing Charm is intended to make its target enter “non-being” and permanently disappear.
No. You do not.
I’m bowing out here. If you really care, as opposed to want to have a cool contrarian belief about Harry Potter, I suggest asking Rowling.